Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Win10 is worse than Win8 (Score 4, Insightful) 196 196

About the only quibble I have with what you're saying is "stop updates". Instead I'd like it to be easier to customize updates. I don't want to miss patches. Once I've got a setup I like, I want it to stay the same except I want security issues patched. I want to be able to segregate security patches from "features". Also, I'm not sure why Windows 8.1 has this whole business of working on the update while it's in the shutdown process. That's really annoying if I'm shutting down to go away for a while, or because of storm activity. I want to shutdown NOW. Not in 10 minutes. Also, don't auto-shutdown or nag me. Just put a RED WARNING security patch update icon on the task bar or something. I know it's there. I'll do it when I'm done with other stuff.

Comment Re:Why animals can't be given human rights. (Score 1) 168 168

everybody that can have offspring with us so no goats, no horses, no rabits, and also no apes, pretty easy definition of same specie animal

Only creationists cling to that definition. Evolution killed it dead.
The problem is that change occurs gradually. The common ancestors of you and a cat could certainly interbreed. And so could their offspring, for a long while, until at first you had individuals that were different enough that they couldn't, although most could, and then twogroups that were incompatible, although both could interbreed with a third one, and eventually, all individuals that could interbreed had died off. But what's the exact point where there were two species?

To get the pre-evolution "interbreed" criterion to work, you have to define a proto-species. One individual that is who everyone else is measured against. Otherwise, you wlll run into the problem where your Nth cousin on one side can breed with individuals that you cannot. Where does the line go then?
But by defining a proto-species, you also end up with individuals and groups that will belong to multiple species, because they're midway between the two.

Look at lions and tigers. One variety of tiger can interbreed with lions and create viable offspring, while others cannot. Yet the different types of tigers can interbreed. So our division into species for lions and tigers is not based on breeding.

Your biological parents certainly could breed - there's sad evidence for that. So could their parents. And so on, back through time, back to the common ancestor of you and a chimp. It's a gradual change. Making pigeonholes you can place each individual in is pretty much impossible unless you're prepared to say that your parents were a different species.

We are not good at thinking gradually, alas. We want to classify and group things, to make things simpler. But it's as futile as trying to define where one cloud ends and another one begins. It will always be arbitrary, and subject to change over time.

Comment Re:Why animals can't be given human rights. (Score 1) 168 168

Look, we have one distinct species we consider human.

But the question is how do you define it?

"Species" is a construct to make it easier for us. We like to classify things. We probably have a brain that favors classifying things. We certainly have brains that favor "us" versus "them". But there really is no such thing as "species" - it's just a convenient lie.

The old rule, "can breed with and produce viable offspring" does not work - evolution killed it. Species that cannot interbreed have a common ancestor, That logically kills that definition (and most others, like your attempt to define humans using human as part of the definition - a classic begging the question).

All living things on earth are related. There are no precise boundaries between "species". Our parents differs slightly from us, and our grandparents even more We may classify our great-N-grandparent or Nth cousin a different species, but we have no rules for saying that our great-N-grandparent was a different species while our great-N-1-grandparent wasn't.

There is currently no objective rule that can say whether someone is or was human or not. Any such rule will either include what we consider other species or exclude some who we consider people. And most certainly, it won't stand the test of time, as we evolve into something we of today surely would call a different species.

I think we need to move beyond our propensity for pigeon-holing, and accept a gradient way of thinking, without boundaries, but degrees of similarity.
I'm very similar to my father, but less so to my ancestor 10,000 years ago, and very dissimilar to my ancestor a million years ago. There's no point in saying who was "human" - it was mostly a gradual change, with a little bit of hybridization throw in at times. I can't point to one of my ancestors and declare that he wasn't human, but his son was. But I can say how much they differed from me. That's useful. Making rules we cannot logically defend isn't.

Comment Re:Local CO2 (Score 1) 64 64

It's really difficult to reason with those who have emoted themselves into a position, but at least you gave it a try. It's always amusing to hear them cry science! as if everyone who disagrees with them is a moron. How many of the five tactics below have we seen repeated ad nauseum from the climate doomers over the past 20 years or so?

Theorists of propaganda have identified five basic rules:

1. The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a single confrontation between ‘Good and Bad’, ‘Friend and Foe’.

2. The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.

3. The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one’s own ends.

4. The rule of unanimity: presenting one’s viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: drawing the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star performers, by social pressure, and by ‘psychological contagion’.

5. The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.”

In no way have those who have made endless extraordinary claims provided any extraordinary evidence. It's precise (but not accurate), "sophisticated" models and the precautionary principal all the way down, while consuming government grant money at an unprecedented pace.

Comment Re:In other news... (Score 1) 368 368

I counter with another industry: Piracy. Look at the pirate bay. Tracker sites are illegal in almost every country, yet they routinely operate for years on end before the law can finish cutting through the tangle and actually get anything done about them.

You could even combine them - put your porn up on the Pirate Bay for distribution and collect money through included advertising in the videos or bitcoin donations.

Comment it would never work in the states, sadly. (Score 3, Funny) 142 142

A cyclist highway in the states would start with an on-ramp where no one yields, 6 people fall over due to shoddily constructed wal-mart bikes, some guy on a strider bowls through a lane of recumbent elderly, and 2 kids on mountain bikes wobble aimlessly and perpendicularly across the darn thing. But every morning a quarter million dollars of race-grade peloton disciplined commuters would roar toward their respective office cubicles, leaving a wake of empty gel-protein wrappers in their path.

Comment christ i hope not. (Score 1) 215 215

I mean come on, think about it. The year is 2054, your Google Car is taking you home from work as you unwind after a long day and boom, out of the middle of nowhere, James Hetfield leaps onto the hood demanding you stop listening to Harvester of Sorrow or He'll sue you.

Comment Re:Why animals can't be given human rights. (Score 0) 168 168

There's an easy definition to Homo Sapiens: a child of a Homo Sapiens. This works for all possible people throughout human history.

Except that it doesn't. It's a classic case of begging the question.

How do we know you are human by that definition?
We would have to know that your parents were human.
But how do we know that?
We would have to know that your grandparents were human.
But how do we know that? ... and so on

Before long, we look at a common ancestor to you and the chimp. Which either makes the chimp human, or you not.

No, you can not get around this by saying in modern recorded history either, because how do you determine that the first person in modern recorded history was human? There must then be another criterion.

[Crash programs] fail because they are based on the theory that, with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby a month. -- Wernher von Braun

Working...